The New York Times broke the news Thursday evening that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, having recently had a come-to-prosecute-Orange-Jesus moment, has invited ex-president Donald Trump to testify before the grand jury investigating possibly illegal hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.
"And finally, Trump has some viable defenses to the claim, like that he paid the hush money to Daniels not to shift the election in his favor but to avoid embarrassment at home—a tactic that legal expert Renato Mariotti noted worked successfully for one-time presidential candidate John Edwards."
Ummm. One sadly ironic detail that you left out: The losing prosecutor in the Edwards case was none other than the guy we are pinning our greatest hopes on, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. I'll omit the obligatory deep sigh of chagrin.
I didn’t want to depress everyone, but yes, that is correct. I look at it this way: Better for Jack Smith to have learned the limits of how far he can push a public integrity case by losing years ago than to find out now! Failure is what leads to success, in my view.
Okay, sure, they're very different cases. My only point was that, since Jay brought up that case, it's only fair to point out that the prosecutor who lost it was Jack Smith, the very guy we're depending on to put away *trump on (hopefully) a variety of imprisonable charges. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Thank you for guiding us through these cases. Although unlikely given all of the legal disputes the Special Counsel is dealing with, in the back of my mind is the thought that indictments will somehow drop simultaneously in all three jurisdictions -- NY, Georgia and D.C (by DOJ). Should that occur, Trump will, of course, continue to play the victim but it will be harder for him and his supporters to focus their attack on the specific prosecutors if there are multiple targets.
It is unlikely, given their different states of play, yes. But even if they all come between now and summer, it will feel as though the chickens are coming home to roost around the same time.
I certainly hope you are correct that we will finally see the con artist in chief hauled in front of a judge and jury. This could become a very interesting year, and a conviction will be a warning to DeSantis and other potential Trump replacements that they need to be very careful to avoid a similar fate. I just hope Trump does not cheat the hangman by dropping dead, a distinct possibility given his health.
When the Stormy Daniels thing was a hot item, I was driving into Columbus (OH), and had to literally pull over to take a picture. Not only was I laughing hard, but traffic was bad, so I went into the parking lot and took the picture announcing her appearance. Apparently Stormy was coming to town to visit the local "emporium." It did not go well. The Columbus police department made fools of themselves. I'm sorry I can't post the picture here. Maybe I will on Facebook.
All I can say at this point is that it is a start. Chickens home to roost, and all that. Apologies to Joyce Vance and her beloved chickens.
This is a great piece. Thank you for explaining why this case matters and why it’s hopefully just the opening salvo on the road to holding Donald Trump accountable for his crimes.
Two things about your post today: 1) the Stormy Daniels thing doesn't really matter. Trumpers will laugh this off. And some Democrats who hate him, too. 2) the only thing that counts is "I just want 11,780 votes," a number that will live in infamy if it isn't already on a lot of license plates. (I just needed to say license plates because, well, who knows, maybe someday Trump will be making license plates...? A guy can dream.) This was a real crime, prima facie evidence, and a threat to democracy, etc. After we absorb whether he's getting indicted (or not), what matters is the timing and the way Trump handles it. (His witch hunt strategy will only energize the base and even sway a few sympathy votes). Eugene Debs ran for President from behind bars and got almost a million votes. Think about that. Otherwise, you're right about one thing: he's just trying to run out the clock.
I really do appreciate getting some clarity about these issues. In Australia there is a right wing media bias so I rely on your reporting to make sense of everything that's happening for my 92 year old father (who is NOT a Trump admirer)
What I don't understand is why he wasn't charge in January 2021 when he was heard threatening the Secretary of Georgia, or in August 2022 when he refused to return Classified Documents to the National Archives? This thing with Stormy is getting real old also.
It is increasingly clear how difficult it is to charge a former president. A good number of the FBI agents, as well as some prosecutors, seem sympathetic to him and are willing to bend the rules, consciously or unconsciously. Then there are judges who will bend over backwards to protect him, as we saw with Aileen Cannon. There are people in Congress who are watching every move by investigators, looking for an opening to undermine them. It’s just a very, very difficult thing, and we must proceed very carefully. That said, the facts, law and evidence must guide ultimate decisions whether to indict. We are nearly there.
Bragg was spot on not to proceed with the earlier case re: inflated values of real estate made by trump. I spent 40 years as a commercial loan officer and never met a borrower who didn't think his assets were worth far more than they actually were. The first problem for prosecutors is that banks don't rely on stated values - they have an independent appraisal (or two) completed by a certified, trained professional. Second - a borrower would argue that they are not certified appraisers and are ignorant about valuation. Overstating values is an extension of a borrower's ego (subjective) and hopes. Banks are more concerned about material omissions or misstatements of objective facts as to ownership etc. Given trump's reputation, no bank would take a statement of net worth seriously and it would be easy in a trial to prove that Deutsch Bank challenged those values as they worked through their analysis. BTW - those same borrowers who were inflating asset values were also - at the same time - telling the tax assessors that the property is worthless.
I agree it’s a tough case to prove. And there’s little paper trail, but what there is is pretty damning, as Letitia James the AG of NY is proving in a parallel civil case. We’ll have to see what the court and juries say. But one note: It doesn’t matter whether the banks actually suffered injury or were not fooled by them. The misrepresentation, if intentional, is a crime irrespective of whether any financial institutions were harmed.
That said, I do very much appreciate your articles and the analyses they contain. Clear, informative, and I especially appreciate the admonitions (as in your second to last paragraph) that we remain responsible and reasonable as things unfold.
Which is why juvenile things like “yes, Pecker” seem so out of place.
"And finally, Trump has some viable defenses to the claim, like that he paid the hush money to Daniels not to shift the election in his favor but to avoid embarrassment at home—a tactic that legal expert Renato Mariotti noted worked successfully for one-time presidential candidate John Edwards."
Ummm. One sadly ironic detail that you left out: The losing prosecutor in the Edwards case was none other than the guy we are pinning our greatest hopes on, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. I'll omit the obligatory deep sigh of chagrin.
I didn’t want to depress everyone, but yes, that is correct. I look at it this way: Better for Jack Smith to have learned the limits of how far he can push a public integrity case by losing years ago than to find out now! Failure is what leads to success, in my view.
Good attitude and one I share.
The difference is that Edwards was a known "family man", trump is a known philanderer.
Edwards personal and political life could have been hurt by the revalations.
Trump could only have been hurt politically because his family already knew he liked to "grab 'em by the p****"
Okay, sure, they're very different cases. My only point was that, since Jay brought up that case, it's only fair to point out that the prosecutor who lost it was Jack Smith, the very guy we're depending on to put away *trump on (hopefully) a variety of imprisonable charges. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Thank you for guiding us through these cases. Although unlikely given all of the legal disputes the Special Counsel is dealing with, in the back of my mind is the thought that indictments will somehow drop simultaneously in all three jurisdictions -- NY, Georgia and D.C (by DOJ). Should that occur, Trump will, of course, continue to play the victim but it will be harder for him and his supporters to focus their attack on the specific prosecutors if there are multiple targets.
It is unlikely, given their different states of play, yes. But even if they all come between now and summer, it will feel as though the chickens are coming home to roost around the same time.
Oh we are within interesting times, and we all turn as one to the source of this wretched malediction: thanks a heap.
But together we can surely make it outta this rabbit hole, heads intact, perhaps, in some cases, restored, with justice served.
I certainly hope you are correct that we will finally see the con artist in chief hauled in front of a judge and jury. This could become a very interesting year, and a conviction will be a warning to DeSantis and other potential Trump replacements that they need to be very careful to avoid a similar fate. I just hope Trump does not cheat the hangman by dropping dead, a distinct possibility given his health.
When the Stormy Daniels thing was a hot item, I was driving into Columbus (OH), and had to literally pull over to take a picture. Not only was I laughing hard, but traffic was bad, so I went into the parking lot and took the picture announcing her appearance. Apparently Stormy was coming to town to visit the local "emporium." It did not go well. The Columbus police department made fools of themselves. I'm sorry I can't post the picture here. Maybe I will on Facebook.
All I can say at this point is that it is a start. Chickens home to roost, and all that. Apologies to Joyce Vance and her beloved chickens.
I like that. The year of accountability. 🤞
This is a great piece. Thank you for explaining why this case matters and why it’s hopefully just the opening salvo on the road to holding Donald Trump accountable for his crimes.
Oh I would love it if tRump went down for this, quickly followed by indictments in GA...my heart would rest better!
"what I hope will at last become a year of accountability."
Amen!
Is there some irony that it’s the Year of the Rabbit?
Two things about your post today: 1) the Stormy Daniels thing doesn't really matter. Trumpers will laugh this off. And some Democrats who hate him, too. 2) the only thing that counts is "I just want 11,780 votes," a number that will live in infamy if it isn't already on a lot of license plates. (I just needed to say license plates because, well, who knows, maybe someday Trump will be making license plates...? A guy can dream.) This was a real crime, prima facie evidence, and a threat to democracy, etc. After we absorb whether he's getting indicted (or not), what matters is the timing and the way Trump handles it. (His witch hunt strategy will only energize the base and even sway a few sympathy votes). Eugene Debs ran for President from behind bars and got almost a million votes. Think about that. Otherwise, you're right about one thing: he's just trying to run out the clock.
I also don’t think Stormy Daniels carries much weight with the court of public opinion. We need to nail this guy on things that matter today.
I really do appreciate getting some clarity about these issues. In Australia there is a right wing media bias so I rely on your reporting to make sense of everything that's happening for my 92 year old father (who is NOT a Trump admirer)
What I don't understand is why he wasn't charge in January 2021 when he was heard threatening the Secretary of Georgia, or in August 2022 when he refused to return Classified Documents to the National Archives? This thing with Stormy is getting real old also.
It is increasingly clear how difficult it is to charge a former president. A good number of the FBI agents, as well as some prosecutors, seem sympathetic to him and are willing to bend the rules, consciously or unconsciously. Then there are judges who will bend over backwards to protect him, as we saw with Aileen Cannon. There are people in Congress who are watching every move by investigators, looking for an opening to undermine them. It’s just a very, very difficult thing, and we must proceed very carefully. That said, the facts, law and evidence must guide ultimate decisions whether to indict. We are nearly there.
“the claim, like that he paid the hush money to Daniels not to shift the election in his favor but to avoid embarrassment at home”
Mrs. Melania Trump’s own words belie that claim. She has been vocal over the years that she is not a jealous wife.
Bragg was spot on not to proceed with the earlier case re: inflated values of real estate made by trump. I spent 40 years as a commercial loan officer and never met a borrower who didn't think his assets were worth far more than they actually were. The first problem for prosecutors is that banks don't rely on stated values - they have an independent appraisal (or two) completed by a certified, trained professional. Second - a borrower would argue that they are not certified appraisers and are ignorant about valuation. Overstating values is an extension of a borrower's ego (subjective) and hopes. Banks are more concerned about material omissions or misstatements of objective facts as to ownership etc. Given trump's reputation, no bank would take a statement of net worth seriously and it would be easy in a trial to prove that Deutsch Bank challenged those values as they worked through their analysis. BTW - those same borrowers who were inflating asset values were also - at the same time - telling the tax assessors that the property is worthless.
I agree it’s a tough case to prove. And there’s little paper trail, but what there is is pretty damning, as Letitia James the AG of NY is proving in a parallel civil case. We’ll have to see what the court and juries say. But one note: It doesn’t matter whether the banks actually suffered injury or were not fooled by them. The misrepresentation, if intentional, is a crime irrespective of whether any financial institutions were harmed.
The crime fraud exception at play here is so logical to me it’s hard to believe that any judge could find in favor of the lawyer or even Pence.
I agree that Corcoran will be required to testify. But the process could take some time as it is appealed.
“and David Pecker (yes, Pecker)”
Really, Jay? When there are so many legitimate criticisms to make of these people do we really need to stoop to kindergarten-level smirks?
That said, I do very much appreciate your articles and the analyses they contain. Clear, informative, and I especially appreciate the admonitions (as in your second to last paragraph) that we remain responsible and reasonable as things unfold.
Which is why juvenile things like “yes, Pecker” seem so out of place.
I took the David Pecker comment to mean that here he comes back into the news after not having been heard from in so long.
It's absolutely possible I didn't read it as Jay intended. Perhaps he'll let us know.